[PASS] Rule #7 has got to be changed.

[Alons]

I talked this with Mistakes. I'll try to get the finger where more it hurts. The problem is not that much about multiboxing, but about automation. Of course i know, and everyone does, that there is no way to stop that, that's a part of the game and the fact to allow other clients.

The problem is when you go to graveyard and there are 10 stacked people. The problem is when 10 stacked people control the spawn points in a determinate map. The problem is when only one person is able to gather tons of items in a short time. I think that's what Mistakes wanted to show here. If a person can play 2 chars by switching windows, then that's ok. Mainly because you can't play more than 2 chars at a time without automation. So probably, he meant the punishment should go to that kind of behaviours mentioned above.

[Crush]

The problem is when you go to graveyard and there are 10 stacked people. The problem is when 10 stacked people control the spawn points in a determinate map. The problem is when only one person is able to gather tons of items in a short time.

Maybe we should look into solving these problems through gameplay design instead of through administration.

[Reid]

People do multiboxing because they are bored, if they do that its because of the development team, not the fault of the player.

[yourmistakes]

The problem is when you go to graveyard and there are 10 stacked people. The problem is when 10 stacked people control the spawn points in a determinate map. The problem is when only one person is able to gather tons of items in a short time.

Maybe we should look into solving these problems through gameplay design instead of through administration.

agreed 100%
i'm a big fan of my freedoms, even if i don't always use them. if there is a way to solve this problem via gameplay design, then let us approach the problem from that angle.

[Crush]

Fixed position spawnpoints are a bad idea because it encourages players to camp in one position. As far as I know there were already some attempts to replace those by wide-area spawns. When there are still some fixed spawnpoints they should be removed, too. Whole-map spawns are a good thing. They make monsters accumulate in areas with fewer players forcing the players to distribute evenly and move around to find monsters.

Another way to throw a stick into the gears of stackers could be to give monsters some splash attack which affects all characters on a tile.
Or disrupting the stack by using attacks which move the characters onto random nearby tiles. But I am not sure if the client can cope with that correctly.

[Alons]

Another way to throw a stick into the gears of stackers could be to give monsters some splash attack which affects all characters on a tile.

I wouldn't go for that. There are stacks of archers too which will not get hit when the player has some ability. If we are for currently freedom, maybe we could limit chars per IP (I'd say 3). About via gameplay design, I don't know if it can be solved that way.

[Acegi]

3 char's per ip sounds like a good compromise. I wouldn't expect 3 or more strangers in an internet café to all be playing TMW at the same time.

[noelleionscowl]

I believe that the rule should be reduced to a player limit per player. That would prevent most of the negative occurrences.
Feel free to ban some of mine - sometimes I use multiple characters now to kill log heads. That's only because the drop probabilities have been greatly reduced to combat inflation.

I know that this is not that forum, but really? The anti-inflation changes were put in place to stop characters who were exploiting quest bugs. Those players use the bugs, not their own hard work.

[baseballboy]

Another way to throw a stick into the gears of stackers could be to give monsters some splash attack which affects all characters on a tile.

Or you could: divide each players maxHP by how many people are stacked on one tile.

[baseballboy]

Another way to throw a stick into the gears of stackers could be to give monsters some splash attack which affects all characters on a tile.

Or you could: divide each players maxHP by how many people are stacked on one tile.

or do both

[Jenalya]

3 char's per ip sounds like a good compromise. I wouldn't expect 3 or more strangers in an internet café to all be playing TMW at the same time.

A limit like this would also affect situations, which have nothing to do with the reason the original rule was designed for.

People have characters from more than one account online for things like "right-click-and-buy", whisperbot, ...

Now imagine two or more people from one household playing and using such things: A limit of 3 characters per ip make it illegal, although they don't use their additional characters to gain advantages in fighting.

In my opinion, a rule like this would constrain players freedom in an unnecessary way, where it doesn't have anything to do with the intention of the rule.

[Acegi]

Yeah you make a good point and I agree that if 3 was the limit then it would mean for 2 players using the same IP they both can't have an extra mule/shopbot/whisperbot running.

The idea is that this would be a compromise between a single player trying to get an unfair advantage and siblings just wanting to share a game and work together. Afaik, the reason why this rule was introduced was to make it fairer for single account players. Using a limit (a number GHP decides) on accounts per ip takes it out of the GM's hands. The single ip household would decide for themself why 1 sibling has XY accounts playing at the same time and another/other sibling(s) can't play at all.

If you take the example of the Easter event, single account players would have gotten less Easter event items than a person using many many more. If you really think about it the issue really comes down to multi-accounts having an advantage over single accounts. Considering to have more than 1 character running around at the same time you have to bypass the game design by registering another account. Each account has 3 slots for characters, if multiple chars per person was allowed then these other chars could be played simultaneously without going round the system.

[Jenalya]

Afaik, the reason why this rule was introduced was to make it fairer for single account players.

I considered the rule was introduced especially to prevent advantages for multiboxing users in pvp, because the rule was introduced a short time after 12-4 came in game and caused a lot of discussions - but that is only my guess, because I neither know, who decided to make the rule, nor I heard an explanation. (This is not a complaint!)

If the intention is really to make it fairer for single account players, a limit would make sense. Although players who use the same ip are disadvantaged with that.

But I think, having the possibility to run more than one account is an advantage, TMW has over commercial games. There you would have to pay for an additional account, so you likely wouldn't do that.
In TMW you have more possibilites.

From this point of view, this is a very fundamental question for the game: Is using more than one account unfair or a great opportunity?

[Kurtz]

I would allow only one character for a player at a time, with the gm who have the task of verifying that the characters who have the same ip are not controlled by the same person.
In my opinion you must be sick to play 3 characters at once. This should be a 2d mmropg, not a collector of social misfits

[Reid]

Btw, why put a limit on 'how many char a player can got online' char spamming is not against the rules, only multiboxing, rule #7 dont need to be changed, graveyard is better now(empty) than with 10chars without soul.